|
Unless the military is open on their investigation and methods, there’s really nothing they can say. But I daresay only a miniscule portion of the population has even heard of this — it’s not like it’s a significant or even moderately important story. It’s dead. |
| |
Written By:
Scott Erb
URL:
http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
|
|
Aw, McQ... you were supposed to forget that! |
| |
Written By:
Teresa
URL:
http://technicalities.mu.nu
|
It’s dead. TNR editor Foer didn’t think it was dead. They were investigating, and promised to report on it when they finished. |
| |
Written By:
Bryan Pick
URL:
http://www.qando.net
|
Scott
Why cant they get more statements from PVT Beauchamp?
All they have to do is email him at scott.beauchamp@us.army.mil
Surely he can defend himself?
Yet once again the accuser says nothing and the accussee (in this case the soldiers in his unit) are forced to prove their innocence. At least in your mind that is the case.
Of course it is the military’s fault for not being open or honest in their investigation (per your statement) and not TNR who didnt take the time to check facts (per the article linked to).
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Innocent until proven guilty is beaten to death by the left’s political agenda.
|
| |
Written By:
retired military
URL:
http://
|
It’s not half as dead as your mind, Erb.
|
| |
Written By:
Billy Beck
URL:
http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
|
Unless the military is open on their investigation and methods, there’s really nothing they can say wow - what an extremely convenient excuse for leaving the onus on the troops Beauchamp accused.
Facts Doc, FACTS.
It seems you are perfectly willing to accept Beauchamps facts of the tale, yet his evidence offered no more valid proof than the contervailing evidence offered by the military.
Aside from the fact that people with experience in theatre and with the operational considerations for Bradley’s have specifically told you how unlikely it is that anyone was running over dogs on a daily basis specifically because of the risks mechanically, and physically, to the tracked vehicle, not to mention it’s occupants.
So, Army investigation aside, at least one of the three portions of MalChamp’s story had holes in it from the get go (which was a factor in people crying foul).
Says a lot about what you want to believe doesn’t it. Tsk tsk tsk.
|
| |
Written By:
looker
URL:
http://
|
As described by the military, their method was simple and straight forward. They called in each soldier individually and had him write a sworn statement about the incidents described and their knowledge of them and their accuracy. That included all soldiers in the company to which Beauchamp was assigned. All of them knew the consequences of lying on a sworn statement.
Not a single soldier, to include Beauchamp himself, supported the anecdotes or claims related in the stories TNR published.
Now it is TNR’s move. |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.qando.net/blog
|
Not a single soldier, to include Beauchamp himself, supported the anecdotes or claims related in the stories TNR published. That just means he was given this one last chance to reject the works of the anti-war unbelievers, confess to the heinous sin of heresy against the war (these two last chances) or have an iron mask welded around his head and be locked away in the fortress of the Isles Ste Marguerite where he would be forced to sit in the comfy chair and poked regularly with the soft cushions.
|
| |
Written By:
looker
URL:
http://
|
Erb,
Proving your accusation has been standard practice in the western world for about 600 years. What other planet have you been on during that time?
(NOTE: Anybody notice the numerous close parallels between the Islamic/tribalists and the left?) |
| |
Written By:
Sharpshooter
URL:
http://
|
